Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates

Featured and good topics in Wikipedia A featured topic (FT) is a collection of inter-related articles in which at least half are featured articles or featured lists. The remaining articles must be at least good quality. A good topic (GT) is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles) with a less stringent quality threshold than a featured topic. This page is for the nomination of potential featured and good topics. See the featured and good topic criteria for criteria on both types of topic. Before nominating a topic, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at the Featured and good topics talk page. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FTC/GTC process. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. The featured and good topics coordinators Aza24, MaranoFan and Kyle Peake determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FT or GT status, consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured or good topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived. To contact the FGTC coordinators, please leave a message on the FGTC talk page, or use the {{@FGTC}} notification template elsewhere. You may want to check previous archived nominations first: Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcuts WP:FGTCWP:FGTC WP:FTCWP:FTC WP:GTCWP:GTC WP:GTNWP:GTN Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Good content: Good articles Good topics Featured and good topic tools: Topic criteria Topic candidates Topic removal candidates Nomination procedure Topic log Topics on the Main Page Former topics

Nomination procedure [edit] To create a new nomination use the form below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Saffron/archive1) and click the "Create new nomination" button. Once the nomination page is created, remember to transclude it in the appropriate section below, to leave nomination templates on the talk pages of the articles nominated for the topic. For detailed instructions on how to nominate topics or add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Nomination procedure. Supporting and objecting [edit] Please review all the articles of the nominated topic with the featured and good topic criteria in mind before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the article nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link). If you approve of a nomination, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons. Supports that clearly evaluate the criteria will be weighted more than those that do not. If you oppose a nomination, write '''Oppose''' or '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. For a topic to be promoted to featured or good topic status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The FGTC coordinators are usually the ones to assess this consensus and close FGTC discussions. If there is a consensus to promote, the promote instructions are located here. If enough time passes without objections being resolved (at least one week), nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate.

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is a good article while her bibliography as well as awards and honours are featured lists.Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Missing the views article. NimbleNumbat (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @NimbleNumbat, the views article doesn't exist at least for now because it places undue weight to the main article. I hope you could revise your comment. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Support – NimbleNumbat (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose transphobic people shouldn't be promoted. Skyshiftertalk 07:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with her views on trans people and also don’t really love the idea of a transphobic person having a good topic, but I think we should let our views on the topic’s content be separate from our assertion of the topic’s actual quality Crystal Drawers (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Articles look to be well-written and good overall Crystal Drawers (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/List of generation IX Pokémon for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

1. Gholdengo

The recently created article I wrote for the species Gholdengo recently passed a GA review curtesy of User:Olliefant. No other subjects have recently been created regarding this topic, nor have any of the already added subjects changed since the initial creation of this topic. As far as I'm aware, there are no current plans for any new subjects for this article in the near future either. CaptainGalaxy 22:04, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – NimbleNumbat (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support missed this ping in my notifications but oh well. Olliefant (she/her) 01:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curtesty pinging @Pokelego999, Kung Fu Man, and Cukie Gherkin: as the original contributors to the topic. Olliefant (she/her) 06:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support I see no reason not to include this. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 06:51, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead: "The Huon Peninsula campaign was a series of battles fought in north-eastern Papua New Guinea in 1943–1944 during the Second World War. The campaign formed the initial part of an offensive the Allies launched in the Pacific in late 1943 and resulted in the Japanese being pushed north from Lae to Sio on the northern coast of New Guinea over the course of a four-month period."

Contributor(s): AustralianRupert (one of the authors, retired); Hawkeye7 (main author, active); Matarisvan (nominator)

A chance encounter today led to this nomination. I saw the Sattelberg article at the On This Day anniversaries section, and learnt to my pleasant surprise all of the articles in the campaign were GAs. I didn't include the Battle of Madang in this topic because I believe it fits better in the Markham, Ramu and Finisterre campaigns topic. If editors want Madang to be included here, I can add it later. --Matarisvan (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi both. Just checking to see if you think Battle of Madang should be in there. Someone is going to ask you, and it may as well be me. I'm guessing not, and as it is a GA anyway it makes little difference. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It should be; it was the climax of the campaign. I always included it in User:Hawkeye7#Huon Peninsula Campaign. It is no coincidence that all the articles as GAs; Rupert and I worked on turning them into a good topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In which case could you perhaps add it? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild and Hawkeye7, added the Battle of Madang to the nomination as recommended. Matarisvan (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Excellent work. A couple of those had me wondering why they aren't at FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I wrote Landing at Scarlet Beach and Landing at Saidor to be featured, but Rupert left and the project fell by the wayside. I also wrote Landing on Long Island but Rupert did all the rest. The one-at-a-time rule at FAC means that I cannot nominate another article until History of penicillin clears. I could add them to my work queue though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh! You can't find a conominator? Eh well, that's a shame. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even with a co-nominator I have to wait until Gordon Cooper clears. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – NimbleNumbat (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The red rock hares are four living species of rabbits in the genus Pronolagus found mostly in southern Africa. They are characterized by their red-furred limbs, grey-furred heads, short ears, and brown tails. These last two features are their most notable difference when compared to other African hares and rabbits. Red rock hares are largely nocturnal, feed on plants, and live among rocky kopjes. One fossil species in the genus is known.

Contributor(s): Reconrabbit

All articles relevant to the topic are at GA status, with P. humpatensis being the most recent addition. Jameson's, Natal, and Smith's red rock hare all have subspecies, but none have any literature that could be used to create their own articles. ---- Reconrabbit 22:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support igordebraga ≠ 07:15, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support NimbleNumbat (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ~ HAL333 16:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

South India, also known as Southern India or Peninsular India, is the southern part of the Deccan Peninsula in India encompassing the states of Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Telangana as well as the union territories of Lakshadweep and Puducherry, occupying 19.31% of India's area (635,780 km² or 245,480 sq mi) and 20% of India's population. South India has the largest combined largest gross domestic product compared to other regions in India.

A significant geographic and economic region of India, where 4 of the 5 largest cities (1 FA, 3 GA), in addition to 3 states and 1 Union territory (all GAs) can be listed. This is a Good Topic nomination. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:34, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an impressive body of work, but I don't see how it meets the "There are no obvious gaps" criteria. It could possibly be made with all states and territories, and then perhaps all capitals, but not a mixture of both. CMD (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – This is a cherry-pick of all the recognized articles in what is a pretty vague topic, failing criteria 1.d. It's missing key states and territories like Puducherry, Telangana and Karnataka, as well as countless cities. In my opinion, the inclusion criteria of the topic should be more specific; i.e. States and Union territories of South India; but even so, it would still require much more work. Idiosincrático (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Chipmunkdavis @Idiosincrático Would you both be better convinced if I made it only the 4 cities listed? Apologies if this does not work, this is my first Good Topic nom so I'm still trying to understand the criteria and how it works. :)~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:32, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The criteria to focus on are "The articles or lists have a clear similarity with each other under a well-defined topical scope"/"All articles or lists in the topic are linked together, preferably using a template, and share a common category or super-category" (those two work somewhat as a pair) and "There are no obvious gaps (missing or low-quality articles) in the topic. A topic must not cherry-pick only the best articles to become featured together". In short, the overall topic needs to be something that can be clearly broken down into a complete list of subtopics, and all those subtopics must be present. "South India" is a very broad topic, reading about four cities would probably not cover the reading needed to understand the whole region. CMD (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you for the comments and feedback. I wish to withdraw this nomination after a misunderstanding of the criteria and how this topic at the moment is not suitable for inclusion here. Sincere apologies for this. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:24, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout is the fifth studio album by American singer Britney Spears. It was released on October 25, 2007, by Jive Records. Its production and release occurred as Spears' personal struggles were highly publicized and overshadowed her professional projects. She executive-produced the album, working with producers Danja, Bloodshy & Avant, Sean Garrett, and the Neptunes, among others; it is the only album on which Spears is credited as the executive producer. The final result was primarily a dance-pop and electropop record with R&B, Euro disco and dubstep influences, with lyrical themes revolving around love, fame, media scrutiny, sex, and clubbing.

Contributor(s): Xwomanizerx

This was demoted last year due to the creation of an article for the song "Everybody"... that has since been turned into a redirect to the album. With no gaps, restoring this to Good Topic shouldn't be an issue. igordebraga ≠ 02:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC) --igordebraga ≠ 02:12, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – It's Britney beach Idiosincrático (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support - No reason to oppose. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 08:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: I don't see why not. RedShellMomentum ☎ ✎ 18:49, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American singer Madonna has released 83 music videos, eleven concert tour videos, two documentary videos, four music video compilations, two music video box sets, four promotional videos, and four video singles. Nicknamed as the "Queen of Videos" or "Queen of MTV", her music videos were often considered by critics as works of art, depicting various social issues. Her early videos also received a significant academic attention.

Contributor(s): 11JORN, IndianBio, Legolas2186, Chrishm21

One more from the extensive work of WP:MADONNA. This only counts the music video compilations and concert tour videos without an attached album (if you think those are necessary, all four - The Confessions Tour, Sticky & Sweet Tour, MDNA World Tour, Rebel Heart Tour - are already GAs and could be included), leaving the documentaries for a planned one regarding her filmography. igordebraga ≠ 01:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I would elect to put all of the videography in this topic, even if they are in other topics (they can overlap). Idiosincrático (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Victorious cast, an American group formed for the Nickelodeon television series, released nine singles, with three of them charting on the US Billboard Hot 100: "Freak the Freak Out", "Beggin' on Your Knees", and "Best Friend's Brother"

Contributor(s): Shoot for the Stars

This includes all the singles from the American show Victorious that charted on the US Billboard Hot 100. I believe it meets the requirements because all of the singles that charted are at GA status, and the discography is at FL. --Shoot for the Stars (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comment Noticed all the songs with pages in the "Singles" section of the discography are GAs. Maybe either make a topic on that, or a supplemental nomination for the discography topic? igordebraga ≠ 06:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose All of these articles are encompassed by the respective album topics, and the lead article already has a topic of its own – the Victorious discography – which includes the aforementioned albums, whose subtopics include the listed articles, as mentioned. Whilst not obvious, this candidate would essentially be an overlap of something that already exists; it's a candidate that exists just for the sake of it. NimbleNumbat (talk) 08:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first of 11 Simpsons season good topics I'm nominating for removal here, due to their main articles being delisted from Featured list status circa August 31-September 1. The retention period for most of these expired around the turn of this month, and I'm nomming them one at a time due to the community having not established a consensus in favor of bulk nominations for removal of good topics for TV seasons. JHD0919 (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a follow up to the previous three 30 Rock season FTRC nominations (seasons 1, 2, and 3) and is being nominated for the same reasons as those. The retention period for this one expired October 10. JHD0919 (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove NimbleNumbat (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per nominator. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:38, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The three articles that constitute this topic were delisted from Featured list status on August 15. Retention period expired November 15. JHD0919 (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove NimbleNumbat (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per nominator. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:39, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season was demoted from Good article status on June 3. Retention period expired September 3. The article was nominated at GAN on August 11, but nobody has started the review in the 3 months since. JHD0919 (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait It the article is nominated than that's good enough. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for the result of the GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Thrones season 1 was delisted from Featured list status on August 3. Retention period expired November 3. JHD0919 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seeing this nomination made me send the season article to the GAN... and it passed. The gap's not there anymore, the topic can survive. igordebraga ≠ 01:06, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very happy to see a topic be saved rather than demoted. I must say, i do find it a bit odd we are delisting the featured season lists so quickly, especially since this will destroy many television good topics, id prefer if we maybe gave a bit more time to let people work on the articles, but nonetheless, glad to see this here Crystal Drawers (talk) 15:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep NimbleNumbat (talk) 07:17, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, now that it’s a good article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 04:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. JHD0919 (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I notified this three months ago. Don't You (Forget About Me) is missing as it is part of the songs recorded for the album. "Don't You (Forget About Me)" is currently a C-class article, but no one is working on it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:You should have notified me about this, but you didn't. If you read the supports, people say it was not necessary to make the covers GA. There are so many covers from those songs that the Victorious one isn't even notable. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did it here: Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show, the right place to discuss the topic. If the supporters showed an empathic support, it is up to them, but we have had several albums that have not been promoted to GT or being demoted from GT due to them lack of all blue-link related articles. In fact, in the nomination, only one person mentioned it: "Support While the cover song could be added, better just recognize what's done already", deliberately going against the purpose of good topics. Victorious shouldn't be an exception for the rules set. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it made sense only putting the songs made for the show. Besides, the one other blue link on the track list that you highlighted doesn't even mention Victorious in the article. igordebraga ≠ 19:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The song is a cover of the Simple Minds original, it doesn't have its own article. The song's article doesn't have anything remotely related to the topic, the Victorious show/album isn't even mentioned in the article. Thus it's inclusion in the topic would be out of place. I reference the Taylor's version topics, which despite the album having covers of her originally published songs, are not included in the topic as they don't have their own articles. There's a similar case with the Chemical Romance album topic, it doesn't include a cover of the brief Romance guitar piece for the same reasons. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying too many things at the same time. First, cover versions don't requiere their own articles, so I don't get the point. Not every cover becomes as relevant as the original song to have an independent article. But in itself, it is not a reason not to mention the versión in the original song. The article not discussing the song is not a reason not to discuss the song? I found sources discussing it (this also applies to Vol. 1 since you pointing that discussion here instead of discussing it there individually), so I don't see why the article cannot discuss it. The Taylor's Versions are irrelevant here. The TV albums are reworks of the original album. Taylor Swift is covering her own albums, so it is a new product. Thus, those re-releases are new topics that, at the time, didn't mean to be part of the original idea. You would have a point with Romance if Islands (The xx song) and Love Don't Live Here Anymore weren't part of other topics. What seams to be happening is that it exists a generalized idea that since "X" is a cover version that wasn't as important as the original version, and "X" is one of many other versions recorded by others, then nominators don't want to included those songs accordingly on the topic, despite (in the case of albums) they were meant to be part of the final product and were most likely promoted by the artist. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 01:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islands has a section about Shakira's cover, ditto Love Don't Live Here Anymore for Madonna's. As one enters the song article from the album topic, it's clear why it's there. The Simple Minds one doesn't even mention Victorious. It's on a whole different level of importance/relevance, and thus it doesn't seem essential. igordebraga ≠ 14:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I_Want_You_Back#Victorious_version has its own section too. I'm sorry but you can't have both. You can't go to Vol. 1 and say that you oppose the delist there because of the same reasons at Vol. 2 and contradict yourself here saying that there is no subsection here, therefore it also has to be kept. Lacking it's subsection is not a reason to not include it. It simply means no one has worked on it. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 16:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I notified this three months ago. I Want You Back is missing as it is part of the songs recorded for the album. "I Want You Back" is currently a start-class article (C-ish in my opinion), but no one is working on it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would have appreciated it if you had notified me about this, but you didn't. If you read the supports, people say it was not necessary to make the covers GA. There are so many covers from those songs that the Victorious one isn't even notable. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notified it at the topic's page, the venue where such discussions take place. Reviewing the nomination, no one mentioned the cover, indicating it was completely overshadowed, not discussed. You are also confusing WP:NOTABILITY with WP:NOTEWORTHYness, since I_Want_You_Back#Victorious_version does exist and shows how notable/noteworthy the cover was. Just to cite an example of many delisted/not promoted album good topics, refer to Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/Celebration (Madonna album)/archive1. Celebration (Madonna album) has 4 specific topics relating to it: the album, two new songs and a video album. But the album is comprised of 32 other songs that were not created for the album. If you'd like an example of a topic including a cover version, Wikipedia:Good topics/Sale el Sol shows it with Islands. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show case. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Idiosincrático: You are contradicting here what you say there. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 01:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino debuted at the Eurovision Song Contest in 2008 and has since then participated 14 times, only missing the 2009 and 2010 contests. During this time period, they have placed last and qualified for the grand final three times.

With the conclusion of the 2025 edition, San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2025 should be added to the topic, and needs to be updated to GA status. Currently there is no active ongoing effort to improve the article and the retention period expired August 17, 2025. Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove Idiosincrático (talk) 04:07, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait pending GA nomination. NimbleNumbat (talk) 08:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I know Grk1011, who has been the driving force behind getting these articles to GA status, is very keen to improve the outstanding article, and it's not always easy to get the time to contribute to Wikipedia. While the retention period has expired, I don't believe it's accurate to say that there is no effort to improve the article, since Grk1011 has added to the article within the last month (see article history), and given there is a considerable GA backlog anyway I think it's only fair to give him a bit of leeway to get this article over the line in the next couple of weeks. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 22:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Sims2aholic8: I've certainly put forth an ongoing effort to get it ready for GA, but I also understand that perhaps different editors have different meanings for "ongoing". I only have time to do substantive edits every few weeks. Grk1011 (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Coordinator comment: @Grk1011, we're certainly not against holding nominations so folks have time to improve articles. Could you commit to a GA nomination sometime in October? Aza24 (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Grk1011 I have been monitoring this one, do you have any commitment or not please do it cannot be assessed whether this topic could be kept? --K. Peake 17:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I can work to get it nominated this month! Thanks for the patience. Grk1011 (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove One month has passed since the above comment about nominating the article, but that still didn’t happen. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:10, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Still actively working on this since my comment. Wish I could find more time, but slow and steady getting there. Grk1011 (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pause Let’s give the user working on bringing 2025 to GA status some more time, another few weeks waiting is nothing, there’s no reason to delist when it’ll likely be brought back as a good topic once 2025 inevitably passes Crystal Drawers (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for the result of the GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait per the GAN (per Gog). Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]